Poor wording by TASS (or poor translation). The Progress will NOT be de-orbited; its orbit will naturally decay into the atmosphere. Without attitude control, engine firings are possible, but stupid, since you are guaranteed to be firing in random directions, which increases the possibility of raising the orbit and slowing the decay. No engine firing will take place.

Oh, and solar panels don't work to brake the vehicle because they break off pretty quickly (yes, intentional slight play on words).

Yes, I imagine "assets" could be put into place and would likely be able to break up the Progress on its way down. They'd want to hit it from the trailing part of the orbit to minmize the chance of any debris bouncing back up in orbit.

?!

Striking from behind would _increase_ chances of generating longer-lived chunks, as it adds velocity to the target, some chunks may end up having a higher apogee.

Anyway, striking from behind is energetically impossible, unless ASAT launcher is even more powerful than an ordinary LEO LV, which would be a massive overkill.

Ground-based ASATs strike their target spacecraft from the front. Or rather, they place their warhead in a spot where *spacecraft hits it* - the warhead has much lower velocity relative to Earth than the sat.

The USA-193 pieces reentered quickly, including in a meteor shower observed twenty minutes later in Canada with a MOVING radiant [imagine that!]. But the time factor is the show-stopper.

Time also helps, in the other direction, maybe ten days isn't a long-enough 'cold soak' to get the geptyl down really really cold. How much do we think is on board? What's the amount at insertion?

Jim,

Not to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.

I'm not questioning anything but I don't understand. Full tanks of anything getting hot and exploding would seem to reduce the risk of substantial anything getting to the ground. Frozen fuel is what makes this more dangerous than usual?

Ground-based ASATs strike their target spacecraft from the front. Or rather, they place their warhead in a spot where *spacecraft hits it* - the warhead has much lower velocity relative to Earth than the sat.

Small nit, the SM-3 during the USA-193 intercept actually came in from the side, the satellite still ran it over, but it wasn't a true down the throat shot. It was a bit more complicated intercept.

I vaguely recall a "controlled" progress reentry a few years back that was observed by a commercial airline with some debris passing close enough to cause the a complaint to be filed by the pilot (and all the sensational headlines to match). Some debris will most likely survive reentry, if it reenters over a populated area someone may find some of it.

The real question is was and chocolate and marshmallows on the manifest. Imagine finding space Smores!

I'm not questioning anything but I don't understand. Full tanks of anything getting hot and exploding would seem to reduce the risk of substantial anything getting to the ground. Frozen fuel is what makes this more dangerous than usual?

Poor wording by TASS (or poor translation). The Progress will NOT be de-orbited; its orbit will naturally decay into the atmosphere. Without attitude control, engine firings are possible, but stupid, since you are guaranteed to be firing in random directions, which increases the possibility of raising the orbit and slowing the decay. No engine firing will take place.

Oh, and solar panels don't work to brake the vehicle because they break off pretty quickly (yes, intentional slight play on words).

Technically, Russia probably does have the capability to shoot it down. It's not at all likely that's what they meant, but it is possible a possible interpretation of the claim they'll de-orbit it.

Not to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.

Again, this is why an similar intercept is a bad idea for ISS.

I gratefully stand corrected, and will need it more and more as time goes by, so lay on, MacDuff!

Crazy as it sounds, so long as it still has its solar panels and they can be controlled from groundside, as it starts to brush the atmosphere, they could be used to adjust the attitude of the whole spacecraft through drag.

Wonder if they have enough power and control to separate the sections? That Also might also break the fuel line connections.

I don't think Progress can be split up into sections, like Soyuz is.

That's correct. While superficially in appearance to the manned Soyuz crew vehicle, Progress is, in reality, a single module with compartments that are fundamentally different. No heat shield; where the reentry vehicle would be is the giant ISS fuel reserve, and there aren't modules to separate.

Not to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.

Again, this is why an similar intercept is a bad idea for ISS.

I gratefully stand corrected, and will need it more and more as time goes by, so lay on, MacDuff!

Yes, it would be a bad idea. Imagine trying to control and extinguish a fire by throwing a grenade on it.

ASAT weapons are intended for destruction of satellites. Not debris removal - it will have the opposite effect.